View
238
Download
2
Category
Tags:
Preview:
Citation preview
Exam 2 Don’t forget that Exam 2 is 1 week from
today (April 3) I’ll put together a “review” quiz, based
on the question sets used in the other quizzes, will NOT count for credit, just a tool for studying
From thought to speech Propositions to be communicatedMessage level
Morphemic level
Syntactic level
Phonemic level
Articulation
Selection and organization of lexical items
Morphologically complex words are constructed
Sound structure of each word is built
From thought to speech
The inflection stayed in the same location, the stems moved
Inflections tend to stay in their proper place
Do not typically see errors like
The beeing are buzzesThe bees are buzzing
Message level
Syntactic level
Morphemic level
Phonemic level
Articulation
Stranding errors
I liked he would hope you
I hoped he would like you
From thought to speech
Closed class items very rare in exchanges or substitutions
Two possibilities Part of syntactic frame High frequency, so lots of practice,
easily selected, etc.
Message level
Syntactic level
Morphemic level
Phonemic level
Articulation
Stranding errors
From thought to speech
Message level
Syntactic level
Morphemic level
Phonemic level
Articulation
Consonant vowel regularity Consonants slip with other
consonants, vowels with vowels, but rarely do consonants slip with vowels
The implication is that vowels and consonants represent different kinds of units in phonological planning
From thought to speech
Message level
Syntactic level
Morphemic level
Phonemic level
Articulation
Consonant vowel regularity Frame and slots in syllables
Similar to the slots and frames we discussed with syntax
LEXICON
•/d/, C
•/g/, C
• , VOnset
Word
Rhyme
V CC
PHONOLOGICAL FRAME
Syllable
From thought to speech
Message level
Syntactic level
Morphemic level
Phonemic level
Articulation
Consonant vowel regularity Frame and slots in syllables Evidence for the separation of
meaning and sound Tip of the tongue Picture-word interference
Uhh…It is a.. You know.. A.. Arggg.I can almost see it, it has two
Syllables, I think it starts with A …..
Tip-of-the-tongue
William James (1842 -1910)a pioneering psychologist and philosopher
"It is a gap that is intensely active. A sort of wraith of the name is in it, beckoning us in a given direction, making us at moments tingle with the sense of our closeness and then letting us sink back without the longed-for term." …
“… the rhythm of the lost word may be there without the sound to clothe it; or the evanescent sense of something which is the initial vowel or consonant may mock us fitfully, without growing more distinct.”
Low-frequency words (e.g., apse, nepotism, sampan), prompted by brief definitions.
“To keep eggs warm until hatching” On 8.5% of trials, tip-of-the-tongue state
ensued: Had to guess:
word's first or last letters the number of syllables it contained which syllable was stressed
Brown & McNeill (1966)
Tip-of-the-tongue
Total of 360 TOT states: 233 ="positive TOTs" (subject was thinking of target
word, and produced scorable data 127 = "negative TOTs" (subject was thinking of other
word, but could not recall it)
224 similar-sound TOTs (e.g., Saipan for sampan) 48% had the same number of syllables as the target
95 similar-meaning TOTs (e.g., houseboat for sampan).
20% had same number of syllables as target.
Tip-of-the-tongue Brown & McNeill (1966)
Similar words come to mind about half the time But how much is just guessing?
First letter: correct 50-71% of time (vs. 10% by chance) First sound: 36% of time (vs. 6% by chance)
Tip-of-the-tongue
Results suggest a basic split between semantics and phonology: People can access meaning and grammar
but not pronunciation What about syntax?
Tip-of-the-tongue
Syntax grammatical category (“part of speech”)
e.g. noun, verb, adjective Gender
e.g. le chien, la vache; le camion, la voiture Number
e.g. dog vs. dogs; trousers vs. shirt Count/mass status
e.g. oats vs. flour
Tip-of-the-tongue
Vigliocco et al. (1997) Italian speakers presented with word definitions
Gender was always arbitrary If unable to retrieve word, they answered
How well do you think you know the word? Guess the gender Guess the number of syllables Guess as many letters and positions as possible Report any word that comes to mind
Then presented with target word Do you know this word? Is this the word you were thinking of?
Tip-of-the-tongue
Vigliocco et al (1997)
Scoring + TOT
Both reported some correct information in questionnaire
And said yes to recognition question - TOT
Otherwise
Vigliocco et al. (1997)
Vigliocco et al (1997)
Results + TOT: 84% correct gender guess - TOT: 53% correct gender guess
chance level Conclusion
Subjects often know grammatical gender information even when they have no phonological information
Supports split between syntax and phonology in production
Vigliocco et al. (1997)
Nitty gritty detail of the model
Message level
Morphemic level
Syntactic level
Phonemic level
Articulation
Central questions: How many levels are there? Are the stages discrete or cascading?
Discrete: must complete before moving on Cascade: can get started as soon as some
information is available Is there feedback?
Top-down only (serial processing) Garrett, Levelt
Bottom up too (interactive processing) Dell, Stemberger, McKay
Levelt’s model Four broad stages:
Conceptualization Deciding on the message (= meaning
to express) Formulation
Turning the message into linguistic representations
Grammatical encoding (finding words and putting them together)
Phonological encoding (finding sounds and putting them together)
Articulation Speaking (or writing or signing)
Monitoring (via the comprehension system)
Message
Lexicon
Grammatical
Form
Articulation
FunctionalProcessing
PositionalProcessing
Formalization on the Syntax side of the model
Works in parallel with the lexicon sideMessage
Lexicon
Grammatical
Form
Articulation
FunctionalProcessing
PositionalProcessing
Levelt’s model
Functional processing: Assignment of roles
Direct object
Grammatical subject
Formalization on the Syntax side of the model
Works in parallel with the lexicon sideMessage
Lexicon
Grammatical
Form
Articulation
FunctionalProcessing
PositionalProcessing
Levelt’s model
Positional processing: Build syntactic tree
NP VP
S
V NP
Tip of tongue state when lemma is retrieved without word-form being retrieved
Message
Lexicon
Grammatical
Form
Articulation
FunctionalProcessing
PositionalProcessing
Levelt’s model
Involves lexical retrieval: Semantic/syntactic content
(lemmas) Phonological content
(lexemes or word-forms)
Formalization on the Lexicon side of the model
has stripes is dangerous
TIGER (X)
Fem.
Noun countable
tigre
/tigre/
/t/ /I/ /g/
Lexical concepts
Lemmas
Lexemes
Phonemes
Levelt’s model
has stripes is dangerous
TIGER (X)
Levelt’s model: conceptual level
Conceptual stratum is not decomposed one lexical concept node for “tiger” instead, conceptual links from “tiger”
to “stripes”, etc.
TIGER (X)
Fem.
Noun countable
tigre
Levelt’s model
First, lemma activation occurs This involves activating a lemma or
lemmas corresponding to the concept thus, concept TIGER activates lemma
“tiger”
TIGER (X)
Fem.
Noun
tigre
Levelt’s model
First, lemma activation occurs This involves activating a lemma or
lemmas corresponding to the concept thus, concept TIGER activates lemma
“tiger”
But also involves activating other lemmas
TIGER also activates LION (etc.) to some extent
and LION activates lemma “lion”
LION (X)
lion
TIGER (X)
Fem.
Noun
tigre
Levelt’s model
First, lemma activation occurs Second, lemma selection occurs
LION (X)
lion
Selection is different from activation
Only one lemma is selected Probability of selecting the target
lemma (“tiger”) ratio of that lemma’s activation to
the total activation of all lemmas (“tiger”, “lion”, etc.)
Hence competition between semantically related lemmas
Morpho-phonological encoding (and beyond)
The lemma is now converted into a phonological representation
called “word-form” (or “lexeme”) If “tiger” lemma plus plural (and
noun) are activated Leads to activation of morphemes
tigre and s Other processes too
Stress, phonological segments, phonetics, and finally articulation/tigre/
/t/ /I/ /g/
Modularity Later processes cannot affect earlier processes
No feedback between the word-form (lexemes) layer and the grammatical (lemmas) layer
Also, only one lemma activates a word form If “tiger” and “lion” lemmas are activated, they
compete to produce a winner at the lemma stratum
Only the “winner” activates a word form (selection) The word-forms for the “losers” aren’t accessed
Model’s assumptions
Dell’s interactive account Dell (1986) presented the best-known interactive
account other similar accounts exist (e.g., Stemberger, McKay)
Network organization 3 levels of representation
Semantics (decomposed into features) Words and morphemes phonemes (sounds)
These get selected and inserted into frames
Wor
TACTIC LEXICAL
some Q
summer N
sink V
drown V
some SQ
swim SV
-erAf1
PluralAf2
sink SV
swOn Nu
sO
wOn
INu
mCo
Pluralswim V
S
NP VP
Q(1)
N(2)
Plural(3)
V?
N
Word
SQ SV ?
Stem
Af1 Af2(1)
MORPHOLOG
SYNTAX
SYL
Rime
On ?
Nu Co
PHONOLOGY
1 2
3
C
C1
Dell (1986)
A moment in the production of:
“Some swimmers sink”
Wor
TACTIC LEXICAL
some Q
summer N
sink V
drown V
some SQ
swim SV
-erAf1
PluralAf2
sink SV
swOn Nu
sO
wOn
INu
mCo
Pluralswim V
S
NP VP
Q(1)
N(2)
Plural(3)
V?
N
Word
SQ SV ?
Stem
Af1 Af2(1)
MORPHOLOG
SYNTAX
SYL
Rime
On ?
Nu Co
PHONOLOGY
1 2
3
C
C1
as well as “downwards”
information
information
Interactive because information flows “upwards”
Dell (1986)
Cascading because processing at lower levels can start early
these send activation back to the word level, activating words containing these sounds (e.g., “log”, “dot”) to some extent
Dell (1986)
this activation is upwards (phonology to syntax) and wouldn’t occur in Levelt’s account
FURRY BARKS
dog log
/a//g//d/ /l/
MAMMAL
e.g., the semantic features mammal, barks, four-legs activate the word “dog”
this activates the sounds /d/, /o/, /g/
dot
/t/
Model comparisons
Levelt’s Dell’s
Similar representations
Frames and slots
Insertion of representations into the frames
Serial
Modular
Interactive
Cascaded
Similarities
Differences
tiger
Picture-word interference task
Participants name basic objects as quickly as possible
Distractor words are embedded in the object
participants are instructed to ignore these words
Experimental tests
Semantically related words can interfere with naming
e.g., the word TIGER in a picture of a LION
Experimental tests
tiger
However, form-related words can speed up processing
e.g., the word liar in a picture of a LION
Basic findings
liar
Experiments manipulate timing: picture and word can be presented
simultaneously
liar
time
liar
or one can slightly precede the other We draw inferences about time-course of processing
liar
Schriefers, Meyer, and Levelt (1990)
SOA (Stimulus onset asynchrony)
manipulation -150 ms (word …150 ms … picture) 0 ms (i.e., synchronous presentation) +150 ms (picture …150ms …word)
Auditory presentation of distractors DOT phonologically related CAT semantically related SHIP unrelated word
Schriefers, Meyer, and Levelt (1990)
Auditory presentation of distractors DOT phonologically related CAT semantically related SHIP unrelated word
500520540560580600620640660680700
-150 0 150
DOTCATSHIP
EarlyOnly Semantic effects
Schriefers, Meyer, and Levelt (1990)
Auditory presentation of distractors DOT phonologically related CAT semantically related SHIP unrelated word
500520540560580600620640660680700
-150 0 150
DOTCATSHIP
LateOnly Phonological effects
Schriefers, Meyer, and Levelt (1990) DOT phonologically related CAT semantically related SHIP unrelated word
500520540560580600620640660680700
-150 0 150
DOTCATSHIP
EarlyOnly Semantic effects
LateOnly Phonological effects
Evidence against interactivity
Schriefers, Meyer, and Levelt (1990) Also looked for any evidence of a mediated
priming effect
hat dog
DOG (X) CAT (X)
cat
/cat/ /hat/
/t//a//k/ /h/
Found no evidence for it
Evidence against interactivity
Early semantic inhibition Late phonological facilitation Fits with the assumption that semantic processing
precedes phonological processing No overlap
suggests two discrete stages in production an interactive account might find semantic and phonological
effects at the same time
Interpretation
Mixed errors Both semantic and phonological relationship to target word Target = “cat”
semantic error = “dog” phonological error = “hat” mixed error = “rat”
Occur more often than predicted by modular models if you can go wrong at either stage, it would only be by chance
that an error would be mixed
Evidence for interactivity
Dell’s explanation The process of making an error
The semantic features of dog activate “cat” Some features (e.g., animate, mammalian) activate “rat” as well “cat” then activates the sounds /k/, /ae/, /t/ /ae/ and /t/ activate “rat” by feedback This confluence of activation leads to increased tendency for
“rat” to be uttered Also explains the tendency for phonological errors to be real
words (lexical bias effect) Sounds can only feed back to words (non-words not
represented) so only words can feedback to sound level
Evidence for interactivity
Evidence for interactivity
A number of recent experimental findings appear to support interaction under some circumstances (or at least cascading models) Damian & Martin (1999) Cutting & Ferreira (1999) Peterson & Savoy (1998)
Damian and Martin (1999) Picture-Word interference The critical difference:
the addition of a “semantic and phonological” condition
Picture of Apple peach (semantically related) apathy (phonologically related) apricot (sem & phono related) couch (unrelated)
Evidence for interactivity
peach
Results
600
620
640
660
680
700
720
740
-150 0 150SOA
UnrelatedSemanticPhonologicalS & P
Damian & Martin (1999)
early semantic inhibition
couch (unrelated)
peach (semantically related)
apathy (phonologically related)
apricot (sem & phono related)
Results
600
620
640
660
680
700
720
740
-150 0 150SOA
UnrelatedSemanticPhonologicalS & P
Damian & Martin (1999)
late phonological facilitation (0 and + 150 ms)
early semantic inhibition
couch (unrelated)
peach (semantically related)
apathy (phonologically related)
apricot (sem & phono related)
Results
600
620
640
660
680
700
720
740
-150 0 150SOA
UnrelatedSemanticPhonologicalS & P
Damian & Martin (1999)
late phonological facilitation (0 and + 150 ms)
Shows overlap, unlike Schriefers et al.
early semantic inhibition
couch (unrelated)
peach (semantically related)
apathy (phonologically related)
apricot (sem & phono related)
Cutting and Ferreira (1999) Picture-Word interference The critical difference:
Used homophone pictures Related distractors could be to
the depicted meaning or alternative meaning
“game”
“dance”
“hammer” (unrelated)
Only tested -150 SOA
Evidence for interactivity
dance
ball
BALL (X) BALL (X)
ball
/ball/
Evidence against interactivity
DANCE (X)
dance
GAME (X)
game
Cascading Prediction: dance ball /ball/
Cutting and Ferreira (1999)
Results
860870880890900910920930940950960
Unrelated game dance
condition
Early semantic inhibition
Cutting and Ferreira (1999)
Results
860870880890900910920930940950960
Unrelated game dance
condition
Early Facilitation from a phonologically mediated distractor
Early semantic inhibition
Cutting and Ferreira (1999)
Evidence of cascading information flow (both semantic and phonological information at early SOA)
Peterson & Savoy (1998) Slightly different task
Prepare to name the picture
If “?” comes up name it
Evidence for interactivity
?
Peterson & Savoy (1998) Slightly different task
Prepare to name the picture
If “?” comes up name it If a word comes up
instead, name the word
Evidence for interactivity
liar
Manipulate Word/picture relationship SOA
Peterson & Savoy (1998) Used pictures with two
synonymous names
Evidence for interactivity
Used words that were phonologically related to the non dominant name of the picture
sofa couch
DominantSubordinate
soda
Peterson & Savoy Found evidence for phonological activation of near
synonyms: Participants slower to say distractor soda than unrelated
distractor when naming couch Soda is related to non-selected sofa
Remember that Levelt et al. assume that only one lemma can be selected and hence activate a phonological form
Levelt et al’s explanation: Could be erroneous selection of two lemmas?
Evidence for interactivity
Can the two-stage account be saved?
Evidence for interaction is hard to reconcile with the Levelt account However, most attempts are likely to revolve
around the monitor Basically, people sometimes notice a problem and
screen it out Levelt argues that evidence for interaction
really involves “special cases”, not directly related to normal processing
Levelt et al.’s theory of word production: Strictly modular lexical access Syntactic processing precedes phonological
processing Dell’s interactive account:
Interaction between syntactic and phonological processing
Experimental evidence is equivocal, but increasing evidence that more than one lemma may activate associated word-form
Overall summary
Recommended